The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for cogent and reliable evidence to prove criminal charges beyond all reasonable doubt.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhojpur, Arrah in Complaint Case No. 245 of 1992/69 of 1998, dated 25th of July, 1998. The respondent No. 2, Hareram Sao was charged for the offence under Sec. 494 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and remaining respondents were charged under Sec. 120-B, I.P.C.

2. The case was registered on the complaint petition of the complainant Smt. Manju Devi wife of respondent No. 2, Hareram Sao, alleging therein that she was married to this accused on 8-6-1987 and she was living with him as husband and wife. It is alleged that after some time her husband and other accused persons started torturing her for dowry and for non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry she was left at Arrah station for which Arrah Mofussil P. S. Case No. 48 of 1992 under Sec. 498-A, I.P.C. and under Secs. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was instituted. It is further alleged that on 27-6-1992, the complainant got information with regard to second marriage of her husband in Aranya Devi temple at Arrah. She got information from Moti Lal Sao (P.W. 3) that accused persons after concealing the fact of first marriage got the second marriage performed on 28-6-1992 (17-4-1992). The complainant alleged that her husband Hareram Sao performed the second marriage with respondent No. 8 Meera Devi. There was also a panchayati in between 28-6-1992 and 29-6-1992 at village Khajuria but no result came out of the said panchayati. Thereafter she filed the complaint petition in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur on 30-6-1992 thereafter cognizance was taken and the trial proceeded in the Court below.

3. The case of the defence is that they have been falsely implicated because a divorce case has been filed by accused Hareram Sao against the complainant which was dismissed. It is also the case of the defence that respondent No. 8, Meera Devi was legally married with accused Siyaram Sao, brother of Hareram Sao and not with Hareram Sao, as alleged on behalf of the complainant. It is also the case of the defence that complainant is in habit of instituting the cases against her husband and his family members. In order to harass them in all she has filed five cases, including one maintenance case, in which Hareram Sao paying the maintenance to the complainant till date. The complainant does not want to live in her sasural along with her husband.

4. The complainant in support of its case has examined five witnesses, including herself as P.W. 4. P.W. 1 (Manji Pathak), P.W. 2 (Shiv Kumar Prasad) and P.W. 3 (Moti Lal Sao) who are named as a prosecution witnesses have deposed on the point that they had seen accused Hareram Sao performing marriage with Meera Devi in Aranya Devi Temple. The complainant (P.W. 4) stated that she got the information of second marriage of her husband from Moti Lal Sao (P.W. 3)but this witness in his evidence has not stated that he had given information about the second marriage of Hareram Sao to the complainant. Even in her examination-in-chief the complainant (P.W. 4) has not categorically stated that Moti Lal Sao has been informed about the second marriage of her husband with Meera Devi. P.Ws. 1 and 2 stated that they were present in the temple along with P.W. 3 and had seen accused Hareram Sao performing marriage with Meera Devi in the temple. Both stated that P.W. 3 was also present along with them but surprisingly P.W. 3 has not admitted (his) presence with P.W. 2 in the temple. P.W. 1 stated that he has informed about this marriage to the father of the complainant but her father has not been examined in this case and there is no explanation for the same. In the complaint petition (Ext. 2) it is not mentioned that P.W. 1 has informed about the second marriage of Hareram Sao to the father of the complainant but as stated above the complainant stated that she was informed about this marriage by Moti Lal S